My plate was made locally. I can't remember where the forks came from, I've had them a long time. I shop at a locally owned store and I know the cashier, no harrasment. I don't find it very hard to make these choices. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you would find something in the choices I make to criticize, but I try.

I'll find some mistakes as I go along and correct them.

I care that buying something at Wal-Mart encourages Wal-Mart to pay low wages, support sweat shops, etc. so I don't shop there. I try to find out how the choices I make effect other people. Why shouldn't I?

And why not tithe as well as being concious about what you buy, and where you buy it?

So if I buy $20/lb 'correct' fish then what do I do about the Chinese people who baked the plate in a kiln or plated the stainless fork? Did the whole foods store correctly implement its harrassment policy for the cashier? Paying more for something is not in and of itself a virtue. If you feel that strongly about it, then tithe.

We only buy wild salmon. The main reason is that I do not believe that farmed salmon contain any omega-3 fatty acids. Wild salmon get their omega-3's from the food chain that starts at the algae that create them. For the same reason we would never order salmon in a restaurant. What is the the point of eating salmon at any price if the most important nutrient is missing? That should be the key argument against farmed salmon. Unless the farms are feeding the salmon with wild herring, etc, they will contain no omega-3's. I have heard that some salmon farms are feeding salmon with corn, so you will not only get no omega-3's, but will get addditional omega-6's, which although necessary are toxic in large quantities. We should be paying for nutritional benefit, not quantity. But of course that is not the American way.

Thanks for showing the complexity. In our instant gratification, short attention span culture, it is very nice to read something that discusses people who believe that they are acting well without demonizing them.

I'm happy to see the attitude of this article toward corporations: acknowledging that they can be and are a force for great destruction, but also a force that can be harnessed for good as an agent of reform.

I'm so tired of progressives who bitch that the presence of corporations in the coalition that supports the Democratic party shows that Democrats are no different from Republicans (Hello Nader voters). That attitude is informed by mindless anti-corporatism. I expect a Democratic candidate to express progressive values by confronting the powers that be (like corporations), but also to harness them when they can to serve the greater good.

I think anyone compelled to read this article is also aware of how Wal-Mart leading this country and others into an economic despair. The quest for low prices has nothing to do with serving Americans or producers, that's for sure. It's about the rape of poor countries and the exporting of jobs so that a few profit immensely.

This is not capitalism; this is facism.

I will take the statement of my 80 year old father as a dark reminder of who we have become as consumers:

"Don't blame Wal-Mart. Blame the American people. Wal-Mart could not continue without our consent. We are as complicit in the undoping of our communities as Wal-Mart. Quit shopping there, for anything. Just stop."

We are victims of our own greed.

"If salmon poo needs to be cleaned up and properly disposed of, well, that's not a way of making salmon cheaper -- it's potentially a way of making salmon more expensive."

Although I can understand the thinking that produces such a reaction, the reality is that cleaning up salmon poo IS a way of making salmon cheaper...in the long term. Short-term thinking seems to pervade business, which, I suppose, explains how companies can sacrifice their future for larger profits in the present. The question is whether investors will be content for companies to continue these short-term practices, when these companies could instead secure their future profits through actions in the present (such as cleaning up salmon poo). I'm just curious as to when investors will begin to ask the necessary questions.

I buy my wild Alaskan salmon here in Seattle & have to spend anywhere from $9-19 to do so depending on time of yr. and species. I wouldn't buy fish from Wal-Mart no matter how low the price. Not every American can get such superb salmon for themselves. But this fish can be found in many places. Yes, it's expensive. But I'd suggest if you're buying Wal-Mart fish that you eat fish less, but go to a real fishmonger known for the quality & freshness of his/her fish. Pay more, eat it less. Enjoy it more.

Farm raised fish tastes nothing like wild fish. It's worth spending more to find out the difference.

And he thinks if American consumers understand what's required to deliver salmon at $4.84 a pound, they won't think the price is worth the cost.

The statement quoted above is mostly true, and mostly false. Obviously if everyone understood they were shooting their children in the head, they would put down the gun. This is true. But will most ever come to see the long view of it this way in reality?

The evidence seems to incidate that in fact consumers will en masse take the lower prices and not care about the details. They have enough stress in their lives without worrying about the copper mines of Chile of the last several decades, or the salmon mines for the next several. Wal-Mart, and so many other businesses, are in fact built on this imperative. It's naïve to think otherwise.

A second problem with the sadly idealistic statement is that while cost analysis of long-term sustainable sources, and the potential financial impact of a public scandal, may be important they are by no means the only facets to be considered by a multinational corporation. For example, perhaps they decide it is cheaper to launch a disinformation campaign (as we have seen from monster corporations, time and time again) to combat potential scandal, rather than eliminating the source of the scandal? This has been somewhat effective in the past. Also, perhaps their analysis finds that it does not matter if their Chilean sources dry up, they may except other sources (or other products) eventually to replace these. There are many more options.

I was heartened by the optimism of this article, and surely it would be an amazing thing if those predictions became reality. I would love to be wrong in my corporate pesimism.

It is a well known given that corporate planners are notoriously and purposefully short sighted. While long term planning is important, it is not as important as the next year end financials in most cases: the share holders want a return on their investment, now.

I wish good luck to Wal-Mart on this. We all may be counting on it.